Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools? (page 5)

tetrapod.sapien

:You're free to think that, but it should not be taught as a scientific theory. It is unfalsifiable, unnnecessary and non-explanatory.

and ID'er's are still yet to submit any papers to the scientific community for peer review. they just keep publishing their own books through their own publishers. sound like someone we know?

jaredg

THE WHOLE REASON FOR SCIENCE IS TO GIVE AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANTION TO "GOD DID IT". THE IDEA THAT "GOD DID IT" IS OLD. THERE IS NO GOD IN SCIENCE, THUS THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS ITSELF, BY DEFINITION, UNSCIENTIFIC AND SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS....THAT'S FOR SUNDAY CHURCH!!

Qcmbr

Hmm I thought the reason for science was to find out how things worked... If you want to disprove God just ignore Him its much easier than grinding up chemicals and using bunsen burners (though potentially not as much fun.)

If God exists and you ignore Him He will let you know about it (send a prophet - warn you then flood your bottom off) if God doesn't exist party on dude.

AlanF

Metatron, in principle ID doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Christian God, but in practice that's what it's all about. All of the prominent ID proponents I know of are Christians and promote Christian agendas in other ways. I know of no ID proponents who advocate pantheism or anything other than Christianity. If you do, I'd like to hear about it.

AlanF

jaredg

qcmbr....you misunderstood me.....the purpose of science is to find out how things work. but saying that things work because "GOD DID IT" or "GOD MADE IT SO" is not a scientific explaination. for example....as recently as the last 100 years people belived that tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes etc. were an "ACT OF GOD". through sceince we have found that these natural disasters are actually due to forces in nature and can be measured, tested and recreated. so it looks like "GOD DIDN"T DO IT". get it?

Qcmbr

Actually from my point of view God is the one who framed the natural laws so even though an individual tornado is merely the obedience to those laws doesn't mean he can't control them when He wants to:

Jesus and the storm.
Parting the sea for the Israelites.
Enoch moving the mountain (or is that just in LDS history.?)
Plagues of Egypt.
Darkness at the time of the cruxifiction.
New star at Jesus' birth.
Walking on water.

(New Testament | Revelation 11:3 - 5)

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

Now I'm happy enough for that to be taught in religious education classes - science however suffers just a little when its used merely to disprove something it can't - it is impossible to disprove God without becoming a god in the process.

I'd like ID to be taught not to disprove evolution but to stand independant as a valid rational theory on its own.

GetBusyLiving

:Actually from my point of view God is the one who framed the natural laws so even though an individual tornado is merely the obedience to those laws doesn't mean he can't control them when He wants to

Wonder why he didn't 'want to' jump in and stop the recent tidal wave in Indonesia. Or maybe he wanted to but just decided against it because of some hidden agenda of his. Then again, maybe he just doesn't care. We may just not really understand God and he could be working in mysterious ways.. yeah.

Or maybe he doesn't exist.

GBL

Narkissos

in principle ID doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Christian God, but in practice that's what it's all about. All of the prominent ID proponents I know of are Christians and promote Christian agendas in other ways. I know of no ID proponents who advocate pantheism or anything other than Christianity.

In principle ID would be compatible with deism, which is the early modern result of Theism + Enlightenment. The very concept of design, implying a Designer separate from his/her/its "work," would certainly not suit pantheism imo.

tetrapod.sapien

Qcmbr: science however suffers just a little when its used merely to disprove something it can't - it is impossible to disprove God without becoming a god in the process.

the theory of evolution doesn't touch on the issue of the existence of god(s).

Qcmbr: I'd like ID to be taught not to disprove evolution but to stand independant as a valid rational theory on its own.

it's not a valid scientific theory. proponents (preferably scientists) of ID, would have to actually submit papers for peer review to communities of biologists, paleontologists, paleoanthropologists, zoologists etc. then, the paper would have to survive the rigors of scientific peer review (which i hasten to add, it should welcome). so far this has not occured, ergo ID is not a valid scientific theory just because wealthy christians (and some smart ones!) back it.

AlmostAtheist

I'd like ID to be taught not to disprove evolution but to stand independant as a valid rational theory on its own.

Are you an ID guy, Q? If so, can you answer the nagging question I've posed here and there:

What would an ID course consist of? Would it spend all its time showing why its adherents DON'T believe evolution, or does it have some actual "we think it happened this way because"-type arguments?

If a case can be made for ID, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Sidenote: Gina and I were talking about this earlier. Some people believe that God has manuevered some historical events, like the JW's that believe Hitler's regime fell in part because of his persecution of them. Why aren't there any Intelligent History debates? Why isn't someone clamoring for their voice to be heard in history classes as well? I couldn't care less, but it is a point of curiosity to me.

Dave

Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

Share this